I look upon the history of men, which I have learned from the books, and I wonder. It was a long story, and the spirit which moved it was the spirit of man's freedom. But what is freedom? Freedom from what? There is nothing to take a man's freedom away from him, save other men. To be free, a man must be free of his brothers. That is freedom. This and nothing else.

--from Anthem, Ayn Rand

There are numerous ways to look at political theory. One is the obvious short view where you look at your current times, watch how the various policies and movements are moved through an established state, take note of what leadership rises and falls, etc. But there is also political theory that runs into the philosophic core of how we understand our relations with other people and ulitmately how we can understand our place in the social world.

With that said, lets think about freedom. Is freedom a right? No. It is our inherent state in the world. We are all born free. No one gives you freedom. You already have it. A right though is an approval by the state where you are allowed this. But then by converse definition, can also be taken away. To say the state allows the right to freedom also suggests that it has the right to take away freedom.

Unfortunately though, I think a common understanding of the state is that it is there to provide freedom, and therefore the actions of the state are the means to accomplish this. With further thought on the implications of such an understanding, a person can see where these means can actually start to become infringements, at least in some form or another. Largely because freedom is no longer understood at an individual, personal level-- which is the only place where it can exist-- and instead at the level of the group. Obviously, the state supports such an understanding of freedom because it legitimizes its own actions-- whether its banning abortion or forcing people to purchase health insurance.

However, if people instead understood that freedom is a quality of life we all naturally possess, not something that is granted or provided to us (including the guies of protection), how then would people comprehend the role of the state? Its a fine line distinction that at first only has subtle distinctions. But with further thought, at least to me, has huge implications towards what type of state a person would want to live within, if one at all.